Question: Is there
anything symbolic about Jesus folding the “napkin” which was over his face in
the tomb?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the story
as it floats around the internet. The response is below.

THE
EMAIL:

Why Did Jesus Fold the Napkin?

Why did Jesus fold the linen burial cloth after His
resurrection? I never noticed this....

The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which
was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just
thrown aside like the
grave clothes.

The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin
was neatly folded, and was placed separate from
the grave clothes.

Early Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary
Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away
from
the entrance.

She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the
one whom Jesus loved. She said, 'They have taken the Lord's
body out of the tomb, and I don't know where
they have put him!'

Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb to see. The
other disciple outran Peter and got there first. He stooped and
looked in and saw the linen cloth lying there,
but he didn't go
in.
Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed
the linen wrappings lying there, while the cloth
that had covered
Jesus' head was folded up and lying to the side.

Was that important? Absolutely!

Is it really significant? Yes!

In order to understand the significance of the folded
napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day.
The folded
napkin had to do with the Master and Servant,
and every Jewish boy
knew this tradition.

When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he
made sure that it was exactly the way the master
wanted it.

The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant
would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating,
and the servant would not dare touch that table, until the master
was finished.

Now if the master were done eating, he would rise from the
table, wipe his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad
up that napkin and toss it onto the table.

The servant would then know to clear the table. For in
those days, the wadded napkin meant, 'I'm done'.

But if the master got up from the table, and folded his
napkin, and laid it beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch
the table, because..........

The folded napkin meant, 'I'm coming back!'

He is Coming Back!

ANSWER

The problems
with this reconstruction are multiple. First, note that no ancient text
is cited in support of this interpretation. It is hard to prove a
negative (that no such text exists), but I have never read any ancient material
that even remotely resembles the details given in the historical reconstruction
suggested below. Second, napkins were not common in the ancient world,
and as late as the middle ages, people were still
wiping their hands and mouths with leftover BREAD. Third, the Greek verb
of the original means “rolled up,” not “folded up,” which would not communicate
the same information that a folded napkin does on modern tables. Fourth,
there were no “tables” or (insinuated) chairs such as exist today that were
used to eat meals in Jesus’ day. The Greek gospels are perfectly clear in
their choice of verbs to describe meals. The participants RECLINED—they
ate in a semi-prone posture with their heads pointed toward a very short
(approximately one foot high), long, “u”-shaped food tray called a triklinium.
These are mentioned in many places in ancient literature and have been
discovered by archeologists in places like Masada, Israel.
Fifth, neither Jesus, nor His closest followers, nor most of His other
contemporaries were wealthy enough to afford household servants who could wait
upon them hand and foot as though they were royalty. Therefore, to dip into
the life of aristocracy for symbolism to communicate to commoners is not
typical of Jesus and perhaps would even be seen as a slap in the face (note,
for example, the nature of the preponderance of images evoked in Jesus’
parables—they are almost exclusively snapshots from the lives of average
citizens). Sixth, it was not common for the average villager to keep
“Jewish boys” as servants/slaves. This is not only because of the
burdensome expense, but also because the Law of Moses required that slaves be
manumitted (released from servitude) every seven years (Exod. 21:2; Lev.
25:39-41; Deut. 15:12). Seventh and perhaps most detrimental to the
historical reconstruction suggested below is the unlikelihood that symbols
would be shared between burial contexts and dining contexts. This is
because ritual IMPURITY exuded from the former, whereas ritual purity is
required of the latter. We would accuse the user of “mixing metaphors” in
poor taste if this was tried today.

Rather than an
accurate portrayal of ancient near eastern realities, the reconstruction
described below sounds more like an act in a medieval passion play reenactment
in western Europe. Therefore, what appears to be a meaning-filled and
exciting interpretation has actually distorted reality and created anachronisms
that in turn generate more problems than they solve. All kinds of
interpretative and applicational problems arise when we attempt to interpret
ancient texts in light of more recent practices, customs, and word usage.
The present case is no exception. The solution is to let ancient texts
speak from their own perspective rather than superimposing our world, culture,
and language upon them. This indeed is the only way to consistently
arrive at the intended meaning of the biblical authors, and THEY are the
ones operating under infallible divine inspiration, not US.

The real meaning
of the details in John is unclear. It is possible that John was not
attaching ANY symbolic meaning to his description, but was simply accurately reporting
the details as he as an eyewitness had observed them. However, this in
itself is quite valuable, and should not be quickly passed over. The
details are not given in the other three gospels, and we can conclude that such
vivid details validate the claim that the gospel writer was indeed an
eyewitness. This, in turn, provides a strong argument for the historical
reliability and authority of the entire book of John.

It is also
possible to observe that the details simply make sense in the physical world in
which we live. That the grave clothes were separate and not as orderly
would make perfect sense if Jesus’ hands and arms were tightly bound and had to
be removed with some difficulty (remember that Lazarus needed help removing his
grave-clothes, John 11:44). However, once the hands and arms were free,
He could remove His own face-cloth with greater ease and control.

Finally, it is
possible that the condition of the face-cloth is intended by John to
demonstrate the God-controlled and orderly
nature of a resurrection that occurred in normal stages. As He acted at
creation and at the resurrection, so He will act toward us, and this we can
count on. That God works in orderly, consistent, and usually predictable
ways is an encouragement to those who look to Him to be “the same, yesterday,
today, and forever” (Hebs. 13:8). Further, the consistency and
orderliness of God also serves as a challenge to those of us to seek to serve
Him because He has called us to imitate and reflect these and other aspects of
His nature to those within our sphere of influence in order that they might
observe His power that has changed us, see His true nature, and ultimately be
drawn to Him to receive forgiveness, cleansing, new life, and a restoration of
relationship with Him.